Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Journal of Clinical Oncology 3/2014

01-06-2014 | Original Article

Breast conservation therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): does presentation of disease affect long-term outcomes?

Authors: Harrison X. Bai, Sabin B. Motwani, Susan A. Higgins, Bruce G. Haffty, Lynn D. Wilson, Donald R. Lannin, Suzanne B. Evans, Meena S. Moran

Published in: International Journal of Clinical Oncology | Issue 3/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

For DCIS patients eligible for breast conservation treatment (BCT), it remains unclear whether presenting with physical signs/symptoms (Phys) confers a worse long-term prognosis compared to mammographically detected DCIS (Mam).

Methods

We collected data on 669 DCIS patients treated with BCT from 1974 to 2007 of whom 80 were identified as category “Phys” and 589 were in category “Mam.”

Results

Treatment parameters (i.e., the RT dose delivered, boost, rates of stereotactic biopsy, re-excision, node dissection) did not differ significantly between the two cohorts (p = NS). At a 60-month median follow-up, significant associations included younger age at presentation (p < 0.001), non-white race (p = 0.041), larger tumor size (p = 0.002), more 1°/2° papillary histology (1°, p = 0.001; 2°, p = 0.005) for the Phys cohort. As expected, mammograms were more likely to show mass/nodules/asymmetrical densities and less likely to show microcalcifications for the Phys versus Mam group (p < 0.0001). There were no differences in family history, multifocality, grade, necrosis, or residual disease at re-excision, nodal involvement, status of margins, or ER/PR/HER-2 between the cohorts. The local relapse-free survival was similar at 5 years (100 vs. 96.9 %, p = 0.116) and 10 years (96.2 vs. 96.2 %, p = 0.906), with no significant overall survival difference at 10 years (97.5 vs. 95.9 %, p = 0.364) between the Phys and Mam patients, respectively. On multivariate analysis, presentation was not an independent predictor of local relapse-free survival or overall survival when accounting for age, race, tumor size, mammogram appearance, and adjuvant hormone treatment.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that although some clinicopathological differences exist between DCIS patients presenting with physical signs/symptoms compared with those presenting with mammographically detected disease, long-term outcomes are similar for patients appropriately selected for BCT.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Schnitt SJ, Silen W, Sadowsky NL et al (1988) Ductal carcinoma in situ (intraductal carcinoma) of the breast. N Engl J Med 318:898–903PubMedCrossRef Schnitt SJ, Silen W, Sadowsky NL et al (1988) Ductal carcinoma in situ (intraductal carcinoma) of the breast. N Engl J Med 318:898–903PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Ernster VL, Ballard-Barbash R, Barlow WE et al (2002) Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 94:1546–1554PubMedCrossRef Ernster VL, Ballard-Barbash R, Barlow WE et al (2002) Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 94:1546–1554PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Evans AJ, Pinder SE, Ellis IO et al (2001) Screen detected ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): overdiagnosis or an obligate precursor of invasive disease? J Med Screen 8:149–151PubMedCrossRef Evans AJ, Pinder SE, Ellis IO et al (2001) Screen detected ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): overdiagnosis or an obligate precursor of invasive disease? J Med Screen 8:149–151PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Bansal GJ, Thomas KG (2011) Screen-detected breast cancer: does presence of minimal signs on prior mammograms predict staging or grading of cancer? Clin Radiol 66:605–608PubMedCrossRef Bansal GJ, Thomas KG (2011) Screen-detected breast cancer: does presence of minimal signs on prior mammograms predict staging or grading of cancer? Clin Radiol 66:605–608PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Evans AJ, Pinder S, Ellis IO et al (1994) Screening-detected and symptomatic ductal carcinoma in situ: mammographic features with pathologic correlation. Radiology 191:237–240PubMed Evans AJ, Pinder S, Ellis IO et al (1994) Screening-detected and symptomatic ductal carcinoma in situ: mammographic features with pathologic correlation. Radiology 191:237–240PubMed
6.
go back to reference Walker RA, Dearing SJ, Brown LA (1999) Comparison of pathological and biological features of symptomatic and mammographically detected ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Hum Pathol 30:943–948PubMedCrossRef Walker RA, Dearing SJ, Brown LA (1999) Comparison of pathological and biological features of symptomatic and mammographically detected ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Hum Pathol 30:943–948PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Bellamy CO, McDonald C, Salter DM et al (1993) Noninvasive ductal carcinoma of the breast: the relevance of histologic categorization. Hum Pathol 24:16–23PubMedCrossRef Bellamy CO, McDonald C, Salter DM et al (1993) Noninvasive ductal carcinoma of the breast: the relevance of histologic categorization. Hum Pathol 24:16–23PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Pandya S, Mackarem G, Lee AK et al (1998) Ductal carcinoma in situ: the impact of screening on clinical presentation and pathologic features. Breast J 4:146–151CrossRef Pandya S, Mackarem G, Lee AK et al (1998) Ductal carcinoma in situ: the impact of screening on clinical presentation and pathologic features. Breast J 4:146–151CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Shin HJ, Kim HH, Kim SM et al (2008) Screening-detected and symptomatic ductal carcinoma in situ: differences in the sonographic and pathologic features. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:516–525PubMedCrossRef Shin HJ, Kim HH, Kim SM et al (2008) Screening-detected and symptomatic ductal carcinoma in situ: differences in the sonographic and pathologic features. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:516–525PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Idvall I, Andersson C, Fallenius G et al (2001) Histopathological and cell biological factors of ductal carcinoma in situ before and after the introduction of mammographic screening. Acta Oncol 40:653–659PubMedCrossRef Idvall I, Andersson C, Fallenius G et al (2001) Histopathological and cell biological factors of ductal carcinoma in situ before and after the introduction of mammographic screening. Acta Oncol 40:653–659PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Han K, Nofech-Mozes S, Narod S et al (2012) Expression of HER2neu in ductal carcinoma in situ is associated with local recurrence. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 24:183–189CrossRef Han K, Nofech-Mozes S, Narod S et al (2012) Expression of HER2neu in ductal carcinoma in situ is associated with local recurrence. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 24:183–189CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Rakovitch E, Nofech-Mozes S, Hanna W et al (2012) HER2/neu and Ki-67 expression predict non-invasive recurrence following breast-conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ. Br J Cancer 106:1160–1165PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Rakovitch E, Nofech-Mozes S, Hanna W et al (2012) HER2/neu and Ki-67 expression predict non-invasive recurrence following breast-conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ. Br J Cancer 106:1160–1165PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Singletary SE, Allred C, Ashley P et al (2002) Revision of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 20:3628–3636PubMedCrossRef Singletary SE, Allred C, Ashley P et al (2002) Revision of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 20:3628–3636PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Bijker N, Meijnen P, Peterse JL et al (2006) Breast-conserving treatment with or without radiotherapy in ductal carcinoma-in situ: ten-year results of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer randomized phase III trial 10853—a study by the EORTC Breast Cancer Cooperative Group and EORTC Radiotherapy Group. J Clin Oncol 24:3381–3387PubMedCrossRef Bijker N, Meijnen P, Peterse JL et al (2006) Breast-conserving treatment with or without radiotherapy in ductal carcinoma-in situ: ten-year results of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer randomized phase III trial 10853—a study by the EORTC Breast Cancer Cooperative Group and EORTC Radiotherapy Group. J Clin Oncol 24:3381–3387PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Fisher B, Land S, Mamounas E et al (2001) Prevention of invasive breast cancer in women with ductal carcinoma in situ: an update of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project experience. Semin Oncol 28:400PubMedCrossRef Fisher B, Land S, Mamounas E et al (2001) Prevention of invasive breast cancer in women with ductal carcinoma in situ: an update of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project experience. Semin Oncol 28:400PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Breast conservation therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): does presentation of disease affect long-term outcomes?
Authors
Harrison X. Bai
Sabin B. Motwani
Susan A. Higgins
Bruce G. Haffty
Lynn D. Wilson
Donald R. Lannin
Suzanne B. Evans
Meena S. Moran
Publication date
01-06-2014
Publisher
Springer Japan
Published in
International Journal of Clinical Oncology / Issue 3/2014
Print ISSN: 1341-9625
Electronic ISSN: 1437-7772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-013-0575-0

Other articles of this Issue 3/2014

International Journal of Clinical Oncology 3/2014 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine